[1232] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: technical details
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Partan)
Tue Aug 27 21:05:10 1991
From: asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
To: vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU (Vince Fuller)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 21:04:34 EDT
Cc: wls@psi.com, ittai@shemesh.ans.net, com-priv@uu.psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.683330294.vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>; from "Vince Fuller" at Aug 27, 91 2:58 pm
Excerpting from:
> From: Vince Fuller <vaf@Valinor.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: Re: technical details
> To: wls@psi.com (William Schrader)
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 14:58:14 PDT
>
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 91 16:32:25 -0400
> From: wls@psi.com (William Schrader)
>
> 1. The CIX and the CIX Association are "scaleable", assuming Regionals
>
> This is an interesting statement. From a legal and political point of view,
> this may be true. From the technical standpoint, however, the existance of
> both CIX and ANS serves to exacerbate the scaling problems associated with IP
> routing - with multiple external attachments, a mid-level may need to carry
> the global routing database; with one attachement, it need only carry its
> own routes plus a default route to the external location.
This is not true - I do not need a full global routing database. I
have my own routes plus all of the CIX routes plus all of routes of
other directly connected nets (like EUnet and NEARnet) and a default
route of the NSFNET. It works just fine.
--asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
